Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    The State Seewooduth Goorbin

    Uploaded by

    Hemant Hurloll
    The document summarizes a court case in Mauritius where Seewooduth Goorbin stands accused of manslaughter. The defense argued that proceedings should be permanently stayed due to the accused's poor health and inability to have a fair trial. The prosecution argued that this was a factual matter that should be decided by a jury. However, the judge ruled that the issue concerns whether the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial was being infringed, which is a legal matter for the judge alone to decide. As such, the judge denied the prosecution's request to have the jury decide the issue and determined the defense motion would continue to be heard as previously proceeding without a jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The State Seewooduth Goorbin

    Uploaded by

    Hemant Hurloll
    48 views5 pages
    The document summarizes a court case in Mauritius where Seewooduth Goorbin stands accused of manslaughter. The defense argued that proceedings should be permanently stayed due to the accused's poor health and inability to have a fair trial. The prosecution argued that this was a factual matter that should be decided by a jury. However, the judge ruled that the issue concerns whether the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial was being infringed, which is a legal matter for the judge alone to decide. As such, the judge denied the prosecution's request to have the jury decide the issue and determined the defense motion would continue to be heard as previously proceeding without a jury.

    Original Title

    state-v-seewooduth-goorbin-2012-scj-49720160529042732372_3

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case in Mauritius where Seewooduth Goorbin stands accused of manslaughter. The defense argued that proceedings should be permanently stayed due to the accused's poor health and inability to have a fair trial. The prosecution argued that this was a factual matter that should be decided by a jury. However, the judge ruled that the issue concerns whether the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial was being infringed, which is a legal matter for the judge alone to decide. As such, the judge denied the prosecution's request to have the jury decide the issue and determined the defense motion would continue to be heard as previously proceeding without a jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    48 views5 pages

    The State Seewooduth Goorbin

    Uploaded by

    Hemant Hurloll
    The document summarizes a court case in Mauritius where Seewooduth Goorbin stands accused of manslaughter. The defense argued that proceedings should be permanently stayed due to the accused's poor health and inability to have a fair trial. The prosecution argued that this was a factual matter that should be decided by a jury. However, the judge ruled that the issue concerns whether the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial was being infringed, which is a legal matter for the judge alone to decide. As such, the judge denied the prosecution's request to have the jury decide the issue and determined the defense motion would continue to be heard as previously proceeding without a jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    THE STATE V SEEWOODUTH GOORBIN

    2012 SCJ 497

    Record no CS 9/11

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

    In the matter of:-

    The State

    v/s

    SeewooduthGoorbin

    Ruling (Proceedings to be re-started before the jury)

    The accused stands charged with having, on 13 October 2010, criminally and wilfully
    killed one Rajesh Sharma Nathooram in breach of S 215 and S 223(3) of the Criminal
    Code.

    In order to understand the issue at hand fully, we have to set out the manner in which
    the case has developed. The charge being one of manslaughter, the accused was to be
    tried before the assizes constituted of a Judge and a Jury. Pre-trial matters were sorted
    out during ‘formal’ sessions. Thereafter, the plea was supposed to be taken and the jury
    was supposed to be empanelled on the first day of the trial. However, before those were
    done, defence counsel moved for a permanent stay of the proceedings on the ground of
    abuse of process. The motion was objected to by the prosecution.

    The question which arose, at that stage, concerned the manner in which the motion
    should be dealt with procedurally speaking. It was proposed that the issue should be
    debated in the course of a voir-dire inasmuch as some evidence would have to be
    adduced in relation to the motion. The proceedings show that the matter was treated as
    a preliminary issue which would have to be decided prior to the plea being taken and
    prior to the jury being empanelled. Accordingly, the matter was to be heard and
    2

    determined by the Judge alone, without the Jury. The hearing has started on that basis
    and the defence called several witnesses who adduced evidence in support of its
    motion. The case for the defence has been closed. The prosecution subsequently
    opened its case and has called its witnesses save for one last witness.

    State Counsel has now made the following motion: since the issue which is being
    presently debated is eminently an issue of fact, the Judge should proceed to empanel
    the jury so that the matter can be henceforth dealt with before the jury and decided by
    them. State Counsel conceded that the present motion is being made at quite a late
    stage, the more so that the prosecution did not formulate any specific objection to the
    procedure adopted so far. However, she felt in duty bound to raise the point since the
    matter is one of importance and may affect the propriety of the procedures and the
    proceedings as a whole.

    The argument of the prosecution is based on two limbs: firstly, reference was made to
    two statements made by the defence. Indeed, on 25 June 2012, the prosecution moved
    that the plea of the accused be recorded, but defence counsel stated that:
    “ …. the point made by the defence (right from the word ‘go’) is that my
    client is unfit in the sense that he would not be able to understand the trial
    and give instructions. That of course includes the plea which has to be given
    by the accused after having fully understood the evidence before, which the
    prosecution has and having assimilated and understood legal advice given
    by him. It is precisely that point which the defence wishes the court to decide
    and since the court has not decided whether my client would be in a position
    to stand trial or not …”

    Defence Counsel later stated:


    “…. The case is can these doctors (who would be called as witnesses) help
    us decide whether the gentleman who is sleeping happily in the box right
    now, as you can see, can understand, listen, assimilate, analyse and give
    instructions to counsel and on that basis counsel to offer him advice upon
    which he will make an informed decision of what he has to do in this case
    and how the case has to be conducted for him for his defence.”

    The second limb is that, in the course of the so-called voir-dire, three doctors have given
    evidence for the defence and three doctors have given evidence for the prosecution. As
    such, a large amount of facts has come out as reflected in the court record.
    3

    State Counsel referred to the cases of R v Pritchard [1836] 7 C&P 303 and R v Podola
    [1960] 1 QB 325 which suggest that where it is alleged that an accused is unfit to plead
    or to stand trial, the classic test which is applied implies six limbs:
    [1]. Can the accused understand the charges against him?
    [2]. Can the accused take an informed decision as to whether he should plead guilty or
    not?
    [3]. Can the accused exercise his right to challenge jurors?
    [4]. Can the accused instruct counsel?
    [5]. Can the accused follow the proceedings:and
    [6]. Can he give evidence in his own defence?

    Referring to the two statements made by defence Counsel and which have been set out
    above, State Counsel argued that, in essence, what we are having to deal with is a
    motion that the accused is unfit to plead and/or to stand trial. This remains so
    notwithstanding the language that has been used by the defence and the manner in
    which the motion has been couched. Basing herself on this premise, she has argued
    that a motion of this nature, which is essentially a factual matter, is the sole province of
    the jury and must therefore be dealt with by them. Of course, the jury would have to be
    given directives by the Judge as to how they are to treat the facts and, in particular, the
    expert opinion evidence given by doctors and other medical experts. In the absence of
    any specific statutory provision and of any established precedent, reference can be
    made to section 56 of the Courts Act which allows us to follow what obtains in England
    on the issue. She argued that the procedure described above is a common practice in
    England and that the Court would be well advised to follow the same procedure in the
    present case. Hence, her motion that the jury be empanelled forthwith and that the
    motion of the defence be debated before them and that the decision be ultimately left to
    them.

    In deciding the issue, I believe that it is essential for us to consider the motion made by
    the defence and to understand its implications fully. Counsel actually moved
    that‘proceedings be stayed permanently on the ground that the state of health of the
    accused would not allow him to have a fair trial as guaranteed by S 10 of the
    Constitution’.
    4

    Upon a closer examination, the motion appears to have two limbs:


    [1]. S 10 of the Constitution guarantees, to every accused, the right to a fair trial. The
    categories of what may amount to a fair trial are not closed; in other words, it is open to
    the defence to ask the Court to consider whether the accused would benefit from a fair
    trial, taking into account the specific circumstances of his case. The issue which falls to
    be decided is whether his constitutional rights are being infringed or not. A classic
    example may be referred to by way of comparison - if, for instance, proceedings are
    being conducted in a language which the accused does not understand, the issue which
    arises is one of the overall fairness of the proceedings. The issue in the present case
    goes one step prior to the issue of inability to plead or to stand trial. It is whether the
    accused can be said to be afforded a fair trial where, in view of his old age and related
    complications, he is unable to assimilate the proceedings.
    [2]. It is not disputed that the Supreme Court, as a superior court of record, has the
    inherent power to protect its own process from being abused. If the circumstances are
    such that the trial of an accused is found to be unfair, then the next issue is whether the
    court should protect its own process from being abused by ordering that the trial be
    stayed.

    Having duly considered the motion of the defence, it is apparent that this is the exercise
    that the defence is asking the Court to do. I am therefore of the view that this is a pure
    matter of law which has to be decided by the Judge. Such a matter can neither be
    debated before the Jury nor be left to them for decision. I therefore set aside the motion
    of the prosecution. The matter is to be proceeded with as per the procedure which has
    been adopted so far.

    P. Fekna
    Judge

    28 December 2012

    For the State: Mrs S. Beekarry-Sunassee, Principal State Counsel


    together with Mr S. Bhoyroo, State Counsel

    For Accused: Mr G. Glover, S.C and A. Ramdass


    5

    You might also like